http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/house-ethics-panel-113521.html?hp=b1_l2House ethics panel scolds several lawmakers
By John Bresnahan and Anna Palmer
12/11/14 7:45 PM EST
In a flurry of last-minute actions, the House Ethics Committee scolded Reps. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), criticized Rep. Alcee Hastings’ (D-Fla.) behavior in a sexual harassment case but took no action against him, and ended an informal probe of Rep. Tom Petri’s (R-Wis.) finances.
The secretive panel met several times this week as it sought to clear its docket before the end of the 113th Congress. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) is taking over as chairman for Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) next year.
The Ethics panel, the only evenly divided committee in the House, ruled that Gingrey - who is retiring at the end of this Congress - had violated conflict of interest rules in his dealings with a bank where he owned stock. The panel issued a letter of reproval to Gingrey, saying he had “violated the Code of Ethics for Government Service (Code of Ethics), which prohibit dispensing special favors to anyone ‘whether for renumeration or not,’ and the acceptance of benefits that could be seen as influencing a Member’s official duties. Representative Gingrey’s actions also did not reflect creditably on the House or comport with the spirit of House Rules regarding conflicts of interest.”
The Ethics Committee and Office of Congressional Ethics, the independent watchdog, both looked into allegations - first reported in 2011 - related to stock warrants that Gingrey received from two Georgia banks in return for serving on their board of directors.
It was also reported that Gingrey had advocated for legislation that would benefit the banks during the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.
The Ethics Committee “determined that Representative Gingrey received $250,000 in stock warrants in the Bank of Ellijay, and subsequently took official actions to assist the bank,” the panel’s report states. “The Committee found no evidence that Representative Gingrey’s actions resulted in any financial benefit to him, or were taken with that intent.”
Gingrey and his top aides reportedly helped set a meeting with bank officers and Treasury Department officials in January 2009 about participation in the TARP program. Gingrey told the Ethics Committee that the bank’s chairman and CFO were constituents that he was seeking to help out, as he would any constituent, but neither executive lived in Gingrey’s district at that time, according to the report.
In addition, Gingrey helped put together a meeting with Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) and an aide then-Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), at the time the top members on the Financial Services Committee. Gingrey did not tell Bachus of his personal holdings in the Bank of Ellijay.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) faced a long Ethics Committee probe over similar actions, although that case was eventually dismissed.
Stefan Passantino, Gingrey’s attorney, said in a statement the Georgia Republican was “extremely disappointed” with the Ethics Committee’s decision to “issue a letter of reproval during representative Gingrey’s final hours in office.”
“While the Committee itself concedes that Representative Gingrey was not acting for his own financial benefit, and that the Office of Congressional Ethics had previously dismissed all allegations pertaining to its inquiries concerning Representative Gingrey, the Committee appears to be using the opportunity to issue a public reprimand of an outgoing member as a means of issuing guidance to other members and as a substitute for providing the prospective clarity about the rules concerning conflicts of interest the Committee itself has long acknowledged are required.”
In the case involving Chu, the Ethics Committee said it received information in early 2012 regarding the improper use of official government resources for campaign-related work, including using her House staff to prepare a memo for a fundraising event.
After the panel started looking into the allegations against Chu, it sought emails from the California Democrat, including personal emails, which she did not initially turn over. It took three requests from Ethics before Chu fully cooperated with the probe.
Chu also talked to her chief of staff about the Ethics Committee probe, who then spoke to the staffer who had contacted the Ethics Committee initially about the allegations. Ethics said that action “could be viewed as an attempt to shape [a staffer’s] testimony to the Committee.”
Chu later told Conaway and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), ranking member on Ethics, that she regretted not cooperating more fully with the panel, but it still voted to formally reprove her.
Chu said in a statement that while she was issued a letter of reproval, the committee acknowledged that she did not have “any knowledge of this activity.”
“Regarding questions about my contact with a staff member, the evidence shows that I did so one time simply to confirm facts based on the official calendar,” Chu said. “The Committee acknowledged that my intention was to ease the staff member’s anxiety and that I expressed regret for this one moment of contact.”
The California Democrat also said she had put in “strong measures” to ensure there was no repeated violations of ethics rules.
The Hastings’ case made national headlines when it was alleged that he sexually harassed a former aide and retaliated against her when she complained about his actions.
Winsome Packer, a female GOP staffer with the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also sued Hastings and one of his former aides. Hastings served as chairman or co-chairman of the organization, also known as the Helsinki Commission, from 2007 to 2011. Packer’s civil case was later dismissed.
Both the Ethics Committee and OCE looked into Packer’s allegations. OCE recommended a full-scale investigation by Ethics even though it was not able to determine if there was “substantial reason to believe” Packer’s claim, but Ethics decided not to take that step.
In its report on the Hastings’ matter, Ethics said that “while the most serious allegations were not supported by the evidence, Representative Hastings has admitted to certain conduct that is less than professional.”
Packer claimed that Hastings had made a series of sexual advances to her, including touching and hugging her, and then he retaliated against after she filed a harassment complaint.
Hastings denied any wrongdoing, and the Ethics Committee said its investigation “yielded no credible supporting [Packer’s] claims. In fact, much of the evidence reviewed cast further doubt on many of the most serious allegations.”
However, Hastings admitted that during a 2008 to Vienna, Austria, he told Packer “he had difficulty sleeping after sex,” according to the Ethics Committee report. Hastings also said during the same trip that “he could not understand how male and female Members of Congress, but especially female Members, can stay in their own clothing, specifically their underwear, for 16 hours as a time.”
The Ethics Committee stated: “Despite the fact that the conduct in this case does not rise to the level of actionable violations of the rules, the Committee does not want to leave the impression that Representative Hastings’ behavior was at all times appropriate. He admitted to some conduct that, while not wrongful per se, certainly could be misunderstood… Nevertheless, hugging is not the most professional way to greet coworkers, and different individuals have different comfort levels for touching others.”
Hastings did not respond for a request for comment.
Petri, a longtime lawmaker who is worth more than $9 million, owns several hundred thousand dollars worth of Oshkosh stock. The company, based in his district, makes military vehicles.
Petri - along with other Wisconsin lawmakers - has pressed the Pentagon to retain a $3 billion contract it has with Oshkosh for tactical vehicles and avoid broader defense-spending cuts.
In a statement, Petri said he welcomed the Ethics Committee’s ruling. The Wisconsin Republican is retiring at the end of this Congress, but said that he wanted to clear his name before leaving office.
“The Ethics Committee confirms what I have said all along—I regularly consulted with the Committee to ensure everything was done in accordance with House rules,” Petri said. “I have always sought to represent my constituents in an honest and open way, and that is why I requested this review. I thank the Ethics Committee for acting before my term is up, and I’m glad they were able to specifically address and ultimately reject the misconceptions and inaccurate allegations that were published this year.”
